4
Research Question Explore the usefulness of constructions of GLBTIQ students in the dominant discourses of Australian secondary schooling education policy. 1. Discourses? 2. Constructions? 3. Usefulness?

10
www.latrobe.edu.au/arcshs DO WA SCHOOLS HAVE THESE POLICIES? *19.7% WA GLBTIQ students attended a school with such policy (only 10.8% for Catholic schools). *94.1% WA GLBTIQ students were given a sexuality education (strong like NSW). But this was chiefly on traditional male/ female puberty (91.1%), hetero reproduction (88.5%) and hetero safe sex (87.2%). *Only 11.5% of WA GLBTIQ students were taught that homophobia is wrong, the lowest result across all states. *Worse, 58.6% WA GLBTIQ students at Catholic schools were taught sex without marriage was wrong, 32.4% to convert to heterosexuality.

11
www.latrobe.edu.au/arcshs GLBTIQ students that knew their school had protective policies in were: -More likely to feel safe (75% v. 45%) -More likely to feel good about their sexuality (85% v. 78%) -More likely to report structural/ social support features at the school (below) and less likely to report “none”:

12
www.latrobe.edu.au/arcshs ARE WA SCHOOLS SUPPORTIVE? * 46.4% of WA GLBTIQ students attended a school with no social OR structural support features (on par with QLD for worst state result). The most likely support feature was peer friendliness, less than 1/3 of WA GLBTIQ students experienced this. * 72.2% of WA Catholic GLBTIQ students reported no support features at their school, worst result overall. * 81.9% of WA GLBTIQ students do not classify their school as a supportive, safe place. 43.6% of WA GLBTIQ students consider their school to be actively homophobic, worst state result. 38.3% consider it neutral/ silent.

13
www.latrobe.edu.au/arcshs Most GLBTIQs experienced some form of homophobic abuse incident (75%), most abuse (80%) occurred at school. Most incidents occurred in schools with no policy or “unknown” policy contexts: Relationships between GLBTIQ Students’ policy protection and homophobic abuse at school. Pearson Chi-Sq DF % of students abused at school whose school had policy: % of students abused at school unsure of policy context: % of students abused at school whose school had no policy: Verbal homophobic abuse (n=1,876) 35.253***2 25.18%36.62%38.20% Physical homophobic abuse (n=561) 18.283***2 23.20%29.40%47.40% Other types of homophobic abuse (n=2,143) 26.842***2 25.12%37.25%37.63% * 0.05>P≥0.01; ** 0.01>P≥0.001; *** 0.001>P